LQDW vs. BSCQ
LQDW (iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF) and BSCQ (Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds - LQDW tracks the CBOE LQD BuyWrite Index while BSCQ tracks the NASDAQ BulletShares USD Corporate Bond 2026 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LQDW returned 3.79%/yr vs 5.06%/yr for BSCQ. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LQDW charges 0.34%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for BSCQ.
Performance
LQDW vs. BSCQ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LQDW achieves a 1.25% return, which is significantly lower than BSCQ's 1.55% return.
LQDW
- 1D
- -0.20%
- 1M
- 0.83%
- YTD
- 1.25%
- 6M
- 1.65%
- 1Y
- 6.49%
- 3Y*
- 3.79%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BSCQ
- 1D
- 0.08%
- 1M
- 0.34%
- YTD
- 1.55%
- 6M
- 1.92%
- 1Y
- 4.41%
- 3Y*
- 5.06%
- 5Y*
- 1.47%
- 10Y*
- —
LQDW vs. BSCQ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LQDW iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF | 1.25% | 9.05% | 2.60% | 3.99% | -6.78% |
BSCQ Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF | 1.55% | 5.02% | 4.86% | 5.71% | -1.16% |
Correlation
The correlation between LQDW and BSCQ is -0.00, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.00 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.42 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 23, 2022 | 0.53 |
The correlation between LQDW and BSCQ shifts across timeframes, from -0.00 (1 year) to 0.53 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
LQDW vs. BSCQ — Risk / Return Rank
LQDW
BSCQ
LQDW vs. BSCQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF (LQDW) and Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCQ). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
| LQDW | BSCQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -5.21 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -12.61 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.38 | 3.45 | -2.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.51 | 43.24 | -40.72 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.39 | 179.65 | -170.25 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| LQDW | BSCQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.85 | 7.06 | -5.21 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.45 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.46 | 0.60 | -0.15 |
Drawdowns
LQDW vs. BSCQ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LQDW drawdown since its inception was -9.20%, smaller than the maximum BSCQ drawdown of -16.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQDW and BSCQ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LQDW | BSCQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -9.20% | -16.50% | +7.30% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.59% | -0.10% | -2.49% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -6.74% | -1.13% | -5.61% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -13.02% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.35% | 0.00% | -0.35% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.35% | -2.85% | +0.50% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.69% | 0.02% | +0.67% |
Volatility
LQDW vs. BSCQ - Volatility Comparison
iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF (LQDW) has a higher volatility of 1.46% compared to Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCQ) at 0.17%. This indicates that LQDW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BSCQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LQDW | BSCQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.46% | 0.17% | +1.29% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.02% | 0.43% | +2.59% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.53% | 0.63% | +2.90% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.49% | 3.30% | +2.19% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.49% | 4.77% | +0.72% |
LQDW vs. BSCQ - Expense Ratio Comparison
LQDW has a 0.34% expense ratio, which is higher than BSCQ's 0.10% expense ratio.
Dividends
LQDW vs. BSCQ - Dividend Comparison
LQDW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.57%, more than BSCQ's 4.12% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BSCQ Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF | 4.12% | 4.14% | 4.05% | 3.53% | 2.54% | 1.91% | 2.42% | 2.96% | 3.32% | 2.92% | 0.51% |
LQDW iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF | 12.57% | 16.02% | 15.74% | 19.28% | 8.85% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LQDW and BSCQ have a correlation of -0.00, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LQDW has higher volatility (1.46%) compared to BSCQ (0.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LQDW dropped -9.20% vs BSCQ's -16.50%.
On 3-year performance, BSCQ leads with 5.06% vs 3.79% for LQDW. On fees, BSCQ is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, BSCQ has been the lower-risk option at 0.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, BSCQ has performed better with a 5.06% return vs 3.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BSCQ is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for LQDW.
LQDW has the higher dividend yield at 12.57%, compared with 4.12% for BSCQ.
LQDW tracks CBOE LQD BuyWrite Index, while BSCQ tracks NASDAQ BulletShares USD Corporate Bond 2026 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.34% for LQDW and 0.10% for BSCQ.
BSCQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (7.06 vs 1.85), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for LQDW and BSCQ
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer